Sancho,

It doesn't surprise me that you would defend such an archaic practice as blood letting.  At any rate, both phlebotiomists and polygraphers are pretty much blood suckers.

Actually, it was called Phlebotomy, and, like polygraphy, was quack pseudo-science.

Bloodletting came to the U. S. on the Mayflower. The practice reached unbelievable heights in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The first U.S. president, George Washington, died from a throat infection in 1799 after being drained of nine pints of blood within 24 hours. The draining of 16-30 ounces (one to four pints) of blood was typical. Blood was often caught in a shallow bowl. When the patient became faint, the "treatment" was stopped. Bleeding was often encouraged over large areas of the body by multiple incisions. By the end of the 19th century (1875-1900), phlebotomy was declared quackery.

http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/phlebo.htm

What are your views on alchemy?

TC

Are you sure you guys aren't meeting in the bathroom? I ask Notgulty1 a question and get responses from Mr. Cullen, the sergeant and Dr. Maschke.

First:  Sergeant, in People v Vasquez in addition to the probably perjured hearsay testimony against Vasquez there was also evidence presented from the crime scene that the victim was was accosted as she entered her apartment, after which she was dragged to her bedroom, handcuffed, blindfolded, and gagged, and then shot twice in the head, through two pillows that were placed over her. Sounds to me like the evidence presented at the trial probably at least included crime scene photos, blood analysis, firearms trace, ballistics, and a medical examiners report. Have you EVER taken a case to court with just ONE piece of evidence?       The point regarding 3 card monte is that your buddy notguilty1 was trying to use it as an analogy when he didn't even know the name. The real scam here is that you guys who claim that you failed a polygraph even though you told the truth think that your unsubstantiated assertions somehow prove that polygraph doesn't work. Anecdote does not equal data.

Mr. Cullen. I didn't defend bloodletting, I just pointed out that you were wrong about it not being a scientifically validated medical practice and you are indeed wrong. The practice is in use today, it is now better understood than it was 200 years ago and the process has been refined, but it is still in use. 

8 or 9 pints in 24 hours even in a man of George Washingtons considerable stature such an amount would represent over 50% of his blood volume. In modern terms that would constitute a class IV ( and there is no class V) Hemorrhage which is immediately life threatening even if you're laying on the table in a modern surgcial theatre. Even in the olden days, taking over half of a patients blood wasn't common nor was it an accepted medical practice. His Doctors goofed. His throat infection caused a swelling of the epiglottis. The tracheotomy that was recomended and not performed might have saved his life. It certainly would have improved his breathing, but it was rejected because it was a radical new procedure that was not considered scientifically validated or medically accepted. Now it is performed when needed under battlefield conditions. It isn't exactly the same as it was then. It is now better understood than it was 200 years ago and the process has been refined, but it is still in use.

Dr. Mashcke.  Alchemy, has no direct lineage to nuclear transmutation because there is no evidence that changing lead into gold using astrology was ever achieved the desired result. That isn't the case with bloodletting and you know it. But since you're here anyway, please review Notguilty1's posts for ad hominim attacks. 

Does Notguilty1 know that you 3 don't think he is sufficiently competent to answer his own post?

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 24^th, 2008 at 4:35am:


I am completely aware that, the obvious is lost on you Sancho since you still feel the need to further your cause but, 2 card was obviously a typo as usual just like a trained con you move the focus away from the statement and on to your typo discovery.

The fact still remains, as Sergeant pointed out that the connection is there.

You keep saying that our "only" experience in Polygraph is our failed tests. I cannot see how direct experience is null and void in the validity of your claim of  valid test. Especially when the overwhelming evidence is that Polygraph does not work as used.
The fact that the police as well as other agencies demand it's use is that polygraph, many times results in confessions and admissions because of the examinees belief that the machine will reveal their deception. 
That is not evidence that Polygraph works, it is only evidence that interrogation works "sometimes" since there are folks that will confess to be allowed to leave even if the confession was a lie. But, that's another argument.
I am aware that this, as all the other overwhelming information regarding the lack of validity of the polygraph is lost on you. However we have many that come here and elsewhere on the net to learn the truth about this scam and so these messages go to them.

Sancho Panza

I did not do research for the post I made. I spoke from hands on experience in my own lab. And the purpose was to try to show you real scientific information as compared to the non-scientific information of the polygraph.

I am fairly familiar with particle accelerators. The Van De Graff accelerator, the linear accelerator at Lawrence Livermore, Fermi Lab., the SSCL in Texas that was closed by an idiot N.Y. senator and Cern.

The purpose of today's accelerators is to determine the basic building blocks of matter, not "transmutate" one element into another which was the goal of alchemists. That was not science like polygraphy is not science.

It would appear that this thread has transmutated into a discussion of electrons , protons, fig newtons and morons. We both have shown how smart we arn't so let's try to turn it back to the original topic of the thread.